By Karen
"Noise": The word "judgment" is generally used when people think opinions "should" be in agreement.
Basically, I believe this sentence has already summarized and put the finishing touch on "Noise," this classic work after a decade-long absence. It is truly a wake-up call. Of course, the book contains many more thought-provoking stories and cases, yet "judgment" is something that constantly appears around our lives, whether matters are large or small, whether they come first or later.
People all want to "judge" something accurately, yet they forget to reflect back on the essence of "judgment" itself. This "Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment," published by Commonwealth Publishing, directly strikes at the core, leading readers to reflect and reflect again. For me, it is quite exhilarating because it elevates and expands my own perspective.
"Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment" is co-authored by Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman and McKinsey senior partner Olivier Sibony. It is a masterwork after a decade-long absence. Upon reading the opening sections, one can deeply appreciate the height and depth of an economist's perspective. I am greatly grateful for this book, which has guided me to have the opportunity to layer by layer analyze the levels and dimensions of my own thinking through the various cases presented.
First, the book explains that "judgment" assumes that if the person making the judgment has sufficient ability, they can make a "correct" judgment. However, conceptually speaking, we must admit that "no one can ever be certain whether a judgment is correct," for instance, policies may make different decisions based on different "historical and spatial contexts."
When is it called "judgment"?
When is it "decision"?
What matters should be considered "common sense"?
And whether what you consider common sense is "new knowledge" to others—this book has the magical power to reflect back and forth on these questions. The premise is that you must be willing to calm down and reflect on yourself and do the work.
I particularly love the concept mentioned in the book:
Judgment problems lie between facts and calculations, and allow for limited disagreement.
Why "limited disagreement"? Because when a group of people have polarized or clearly distinguishable differing opinions, this is not called judgment, but "decision." Yet how much component of disagreement in judgment can be accepted? That is a highly subjective matter, and as mentioned earlier:
There is never a correct answer, only experience
If you hope the world has standard answers, then becoming a robot might be easier, but that's impossible. The difficulty of "judgment" is not just "making a judgment," but "after making a judgment"—taking on responsibility and accountability for oneself, the organization, and even the surrounding world.
Even though it is far from ideal or imperfect.
Recently, because I'm in the early stages of starting a business, I've had multiple occasions to judge various situations, and even guide young colleagues to think about more holistic perspectives.
Although my so-called judgments might seem like trivial matters to experienced people, for those trapped in current dilemmas or situations, small things always feel like big things.
If you want to evaluate "why can't I judge," "why does my judgment always fall short of the ideal," the answer is simple, very simple: "insufficient experience."
How frustrating.
Who wants to be thought of as inexperienced?
How frustrating.
Knowing that admitting lack of experience could let you off the hook.
Why not?
The answer is still the same: "insufficient experience."
Because past experience cannot guide you to judge "Will giving up this thing now cause a massive change in my life?", "Will my life be ruined?" (It absolutely won't.)
Because of insufficient experience, people worry and thus make worst-case plans for themselves. In psychology, this is called the "Wallenda Effect."
This effect comes from Wallenda, a high-wire performer who performed tightrope walking many times in his lifetime. During his performances, he would not be affected by the audience's applause or gasps—he simply focused on each step. However, at age 73, wanting to leave a special mark to commemorate his life, he decided to perform on a tightrope strung between two 20-story buildings in Puerto Rico.
Yet during this performance, he lost his footing and died.
His wife, in an interview afterward, said, "I knew he would fail," because before the performance, Wallenda kept repeating "this performance is important, I cannot fail." Unlike his past successful experiences:
In the past, he only focused on executing the details of the process, rarely considering the outcome of success or failure
Later, psychologists termed this mentality—spending mental energy worrying about success and failure while ignoring the process of effort—the "Wallenda Effect."
Such a mindset further affects one's "judgment ability." One or two instances of misjudgment can be accepted because "limited error tolerance is allowed," yet "limit" is quite a subjective feeling. Each person's limit differs, each team's limit is inconsistent. How to "judge" and allow oneself to adapt and match various situations, and perform one's abilities well, is a problem that every person must urgently take seriously.
Recommendation Rating: ★★★★★
